Cobey LaKemper v. George Solomon, No. 19-6891 (4th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6891 COBEY LAKEMPER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GEORGE T. SOLOMON, Director of Prisons; BENJAMIN A. CARVER, Assistant Superintendent - Alexander C.I.; CAPTAIN CHESTER, SRG Correctional Officer - Alexander C.I.; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DULA, SRG Correctional Officer - Alexander C.I.; CHRISTOPHER RICH, Chief SRG Coordinator - Division of Prisons; LEVI BROTHERS, SRG Correctional Officer - Pasquotank C.I.; LARRY SWAIN, SRG Correctional Officer - Pasquotank C.I.; KENNETH E. LASSITER, Director of Prisons, Defendants - Appellees, and ERIC T. DYE, Assistant Superintendent - Alexander C.I.; ARTHUR A. SICIAK, Unit Manager - Alexander C.I.; FELIX TAYLOR, Superintendent - Pasquotank C.I.; COLBERT RESPESS, Assistant Superintendent - Pasquotank C.I.; JOSEPH HARRELL, Assistant Superintendent - Pasquotank C.I.; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BLANKENSHIP, Correctional Officer - Alexander C.I., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (5:17-cv-00073-FDW) Submitted: November 22, 2019 Decided: December 4, 2019 Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cobey LaKemper, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Cobey LaKemper seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order LaKemper seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. * Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED * LaKemper’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) motion for permission to immediately appeal is still pending in the district court. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
